May 27, 2014

Your Masculinity Must Be Abolished

Some of you may remember Ms Lierre Keith, a former radical vegan activist turned radical advocate of a return to subsistence farming. Ms Keith has long been a vocal champion of vandalism, harassment and “militant action,” and taken at their own words, she and her colleagues would like to see those they deem “associated” with environmental accidents being killed by the state. They also like the idea of “sabotaging infrastructure” and cutting power lines, thereby leaving tens of thousands of people without light and heat, as this would somehow encourage “class consciousness.” Elderly people in remote locations would presumably embrace the finer points of revolutionary eco-socialism as they shivered in the dark and the feeling left their limbs.

In March 2010 Ms Keith was herself targeted for “militant action” by disgruntled vegans even more radical and pious than she, and who disrupted her lecture at an anarchist book fair by pelting Ms Keith with chili-flavoured cream pies. An experience our fearless titan found both bewildering and outrageous. “The whole thing was designed for social humiliation,” Ms Keith told the San Francisco Chronicle. “We’re supposed to be against sadism and cruelty and domination, and these people were willing to do this to me.” Unfortunately, the Chronicle didn’t ask Ms Keith whether this small taste of her own medicine, her own methods, had altered her position on changing the views of others by means of “militant action.”

Having since recovered from this traumatic encounter with slapstick protest, and armed only with an anatomical slideshow of male genitalia, Ms Keith has resumed her attempts to establish her own radical credentials in yet another sphere. And so, in the following video, recorded over the weekend at a public library in Portland, Oregon, Ms Keith – now a “radical feminist and gender abolitionist” – speaks truth to power, fearlessly, radically, and at enormous personal risk. Specifically, she shares the truth that, “Being a man requires a psychology based on entitlement, emotional numbness, and a dichotomy of self-knowledge.” Self-knowledge being a subject on which Ms Keith can speak with unassailable authority.

Naturally, Ms Keith’s latest area of expertise is not limited to maleness and its inherent wickedness; the entire world of manandwomanlyness™ is hers to describe, and of course correct. And so we learn that, “Gender is a political creation because patriarchy has to separate who counts as human and who counts as an appropriate target for violation. That’s what gender is.” Gender, it turns out, is merely a “caste system,” one “disguised as biology.” Therefore there must be “organised political resistance.” Which is to say, “The sex class ‘men’… needs to be abolished if women are ever to be free.” Because, “Liberty and a living planet will only be won when masculinity, its religion, its economics, its psychology and its sex is resisted and finally defeated.” These deep thoughts and more can be savoured more fully in the video below:

You’ll notice Ms Keith isn’t big on evidence, consistency or logical argument; she merely asserts and begs questions, and then asserts some more. Masculinity is “emotional numbness,” femininity is “the traumatised psyche,” and gender is “a political creation… to separate who counts as human.” These things just are whatever she says they are, apparently. And so despite Ms Keith’s alleged dislike of religion – “masculinity’s religion” – her own behaviour looks an awful lot like dogmatic sermonising.

"The truth is that there is no such thing as a lone misogynist – they are created by our culture, and by communities that tells them that their hatred is both commonplace and justified"

So true. Just this evening I was watching the local news when it was interrupted by a local PSA that reminded me that it's totally cool and ok to hate my wife and hurt her when I feel like it. I'll make sure to mention this fact it to all my guy friends and locals at the community meeting tomorrow while we enjoy some freshly roasted coffee and my wife's homemade muffins (for which I brutally beat her because she made them with too few chocolate chippies! Not to worry, I'm sure the group would approve of punishment)

The truth is that there is no such thing as a lone misogynist – they are created by...communities that tells them that their hatred is both commonplace and justified

Except among Muslims.

what?

I mean occasionally you'll have a fellow chop up a few female relatives, except he'll be Muslim. That sort of person isn't the creation of a community that tells him his hatred is commonplace, possibly even legal in his country of origin, and/or justified by the book the community has placed at the center of its life as well as its exegesis in basically every major school of thought on the book ever.

oh, right, obviously *that* kind of person is a lone wolf who doesn't reflect *at all* on his community, culture, or religion.

"Killed by the State"
I notice she has no plans to come and do it herself!
Why is it all these lefty bitches are so anti male, were they not asked out much when younger?
I do sometimes (ok, most times) wish we could just ship these wasters to an island somewhere, berift of anything a mere male had produced or invented, and see how long their 'right on' feminist attitudes sustained them. I predict a few weeks of it would have the survivors desperate to return and would indeed make much nicer people of them.

To be honest, the way she just drones on, it sounds as if she doesn't actually believe anything she's saying.
BTW, Lierre (crazy name, crazy girl!) have you lost some weight since you were pied? If you grew your hair out, wore some makeup and a nice dress, I might go out with you. Call me.

"Gender is a political creation..." Damn, I never knew that. For the sake of argument (or nothing at all), let's assume there's an intelligent ant, that can observe and reason. This ant sees two bipeds, obviously of the same species, yet somehow different. One has protuberances on the upper body, the other doesn't. One has a protuberance on the lower body, the other doesn't. They're the same, only different, thinks the ant. Ms. Keith would probably stomp the crap out of that ant.

I wonder what will come of the elimination of the "sex class" of men. You can imagine the Boy Scouts of America earning the merit badge for castration eventually. "This is a big day for you soon-to-be gender neutrals," says the scoutmaster. "Today, you become not "men" but neuters." "Now, this way to the castration clinic."

In the US, billions of dollars flow from men to women each year. Women win an overwhelming percentage of divorce settlements and property. Women enjoy roughly 20% more college attendance and women enjoy the lion's share of public entitlement. Women suffer a tiny fraction of the deaths men do from danger and violence. Women outlive men by years and years.

Hang on, wasn't it the LGBT mob (T in particular, obviously) who insisted we give behavioural Gender equal but separate significance compared to biological Sex? Now that we have done so, the RadFems claim that the classification of Gender is oppressive?

Either Ms Keith is overdue some re-education or these two factions really need to coordinate their agendas...

I suppose if you hang out with people who regard criticism as “traumatic” and who regard being arrested while committing serious crimes as being “attacked” – and if you think these people are righteous and sincere, and not at all absurd – then the world must seem a bewildering place. What with the delusion and reality being somewhat at odds.

They also like the idea of “sabotaging infrastructure” and cutting power lines, thereby leaving tens of thousands of people without light and heat, as this would somehow encourage “class consciousness.” Elderly people in remote locations would presumably embrace the finer points of revolutionary eco-socialism as they shivered in the dark and the feeling left their limbs.

Well, when it comes to self-styled Marxoid “radicals” and people with worryingly sadistic and sociopathic tendencies, there does seem to be a large overlap. More, I think, than could be waved aside as merely coincidental.

'Ms Keith isn’t big on evidence, consistency or logical argument; she merely asserts and begs questions, and then asserts some more...And so despite Ms Keith’s alleged dislike of religion – “masculinity’s religion” – her own behaviour looks an awful lot like dogmatic sermonising.'

Indeed. She sees herself as a prophet(ess). Her intention is to strengthen and increase the faithful. Evidence or consistency or logical argument are irrelevant. She is an elite mediator of the truth. She points at the truth, defines it ostensively, and, by virtue of her elite mediation, the scales fall from the eyes of the Elect.

“We’re supposed to be against sadism and cruelty and domination, and these people were willing to do this to me.”

Using violence and sabotage to bring about the absolute collapse of civilization is perfectly acceptible, providing nobody throws any pies...

Yep, that's logically consistent.

Being pied by vegans isn't Ms Keith's only run-in with the Thought Police. Recently, she's also the victim of a 'shocking' cancellation of a lecture she was scheduled to deliver at Laurence University:

The article in question is a leftist declaring that banning thoughtcriminals from campus is not only 'shocking', but being able to do so is proof of your privelege. Two statements that suggest that self awareness is not a strong suit with leftists.

Also, the left in general has been perfectly fine with Ms Keith openly advocating the extermination of an entire race of people, the extinction of an entire gender, the forced collapse of technological civilization which would kill the great bulk of humanity and the execution of eco-criminals. But they absolutely will not tolerate her referring to men in dresses as men. Which suggests that priorities aren't a strong suit with leftists either.

Yes, this is someone who thrills to the idea of “radical” vandalism and “sabotaging infrastructure,” thereby endangering other people’s lives, and who then splutters with scandalised indignation when faced with even the smallest repayment of that same attitude. A moral giant, clearly.

Setting aside the wickedness of people like Keith, exactly how does she imagine her campaign of viricide is to be brought about? Is the stronger, more aggressive and more heavily-armed half of the human race somehow meant to have its consciousness raised to the point where it will acquiesce in its extinction? And you presumably have to convince the non-Keith women of this world that it's OK for them to watch their husbands, sons, fathers and brothers led off for re-education or termination.

Of course it's a pose, and a not particularly artful one at that. It is only possible, paradoxically, for her to rail against these supposed power imbalances from within a society where they are almost absent. What's more, the societies where they do exist are not much cop for the overwhelming majority of men, either. Sure, maybe the people doing the oppressing are mainly men, but the average man is more likely to be oppressed than an oppressor. It's only in near-equal societies where the sex imbalances become salient. Were Keith to start railing against the phallocracy in Tehran or Quetta, a pie in the face would be the least of her worries.

If you follow the Twitter feed for Deep Green Resistance, the organisation to which Ms Keith belongs, you’ll find people who envision the end of agriculture, the end of capitalism and “complete economic collapse” as the only way to save the planet, if not the people on it.

Of course it’s a pose, and a not particularly artful one at that. It is only possible, paradoxically, for her to rail against these supposed power imbalances from within a society where they are almost absent.

I guess that’s the issue. Is Ms Keith actually delusional or merely chronically pretentious? And if a person can’t stop pretending and has to carry on for years with ever more outlandish claims, is there much of a practical difference?

Cognitive dissonance is no doubt an unfortunate and often unavoidable condition of being human. But then again, so are congenital defects like glaucoma but no one has yet concluded that we should therefore stop striving to correct such ocular defects even in the full knowledge that we'll fail many times before achieving a success (that may never even come)

On the other hand, there are those like Keith and her comrades in arms for whom cognitive dissonance must surely be a necessary condition of membership to Deep Green Resistance, if not an actual way of life. For example:

When civilization ends, the living world will rejoice. We must be biophilic people in order to survive. Those of us who have forgotten how must learn again to live with the land and air and water and creatures around us in communities built on respect and thanksgiving. We welcome this future.

And from the website's Indigenous Solidarity Guidelines (No. 1):

First and foremost we must recognize that non-indigenous people are occupying stolen land in an ongoing genocide that has lasted for centuries. We must affirm our responsibility to stand with indigenous communities who want support and give everything we can to protect their land and culture from further devastation; they have been on the frontlines of biocide and genocide for centuries, and as allies, we need to step up and join them.

I'm trying – and so far failing – to work out how in such a case they'd set about being both 'biophilic' enough to prevent the hunting and killing of whales while also simultaneously managing to uphold White Ally Guideline point 10:

Do not speak as an authority on subjects that people of color directly experience and you do not. If you are to speak at all on such subjects, it should only be after people of color or if people of color ask you to do so.

"Ms Keith has long been a vocal champion of vandalism, harassment and 'militant action'...In March 2010 Ms Keith was herself targeted for 'militant action' by disgruntled vegans even more radical than she..."

It's always amusing when Red Guards/Brown Shirts/whatever are themselves targeted for violence by more militant or opportunistic leftists. Their bewilderment is not only richly deserved but endlessly entertaining.

If you click back through the link to the original SFGate story you get the a near perfect headline: "Pies-in-face attack roils anarchist-vegan world"

"The whole thing was designed for social humiliation," said Keith, speaking Tuesday from her sister's home in Kansas. "We're supposed to be against sadism and cruelty and domination, and these people were willing to do this to me."

To paraphrase what i said in another thread Lierre, whether you are Trotsky and Bukharin of Stalin and Beria depends entirely on how much cruelty you are willing to dispense. When the revolution comes you will either be one of four types of people: a victim, a useful idiot, a leader, or a leader willing to do whatever it takes to stay on top. Only the last type survive for long and if they're very lucky they might die a natural death.

Their bewilderment is not only richly deserved but endlessly entertaining.

What was funny about the pie attack was the stated grievance of the pie-flingers (or “anonymous masked peoples,” as their cheerleaders put it). The indignant anarcho-vegans claimed to have been “traumatised” by Ms Keith’s criticism, especially her description of them as “ignorant and child-like.” And her mere presence at an anarchist book fair had apparently rendered the place unsafe for vegetarians. And so, not being at all ignorant or child-like, they threw cream pies at her. Laced with chili, to add a risk of injury. Because they’re better than us and they care so very much.

David Gillies."Setting aside the wickedness of people like Keith, exactly how does she imagine her campaign of viricide is to be brought about? Is the stronger, more aggressive and more heavily-armed half of the human race somehow meant to have its consciousness raised to the point where it will acquiesce in its extinction?"

First and foremost we must recognize that non-indigenous people are occupying stolen land in an ongoing genocide that has lasted for centuries. We must affirm our responsibility to stand with indigenous communities who want support and give everything we can to protect their land and culture from further devastation; they have been on the frontlines of biocide and genocide for centuries, and as allies, we need to step up and join them.

Bet that somehow doesn't apply for inadequately-melanined indigenous peoples. Because privilege. Or something.

Well these are the extreme lunatics with their silly Judith Butler-impression haircuts and wooden anti-male diatribes.

Is there a more moderate feminism, completely disconnected from all this? I didn't particularly go looking for this (I avoid feminist blogs & forums 99.9% of the time) but this is what I find:

We have Twitter, where rational argument is impossible in 140 characters, so all you get is propaganda. Every day there seems to be a new hashtag like #weneedfeminismbecause - inviting people to come up with their "reasons"

There's Google, where we get a Google Doodle celebrating a new woman every other day (apparently too many male achievers have been celebrated so we needed "balance"). There's the mad arguments and feminism-supporting posts from staff on tumblr, the editorial bias on Wikipedia, and our favourite newspaper and state broadcaster. Even the Times is constantly churning out new pieces of gender political rubbish now.

And there's the "Everyday Sexism" project - very much in vogue with the London-lefty crowd, and entirely based on the assumption that any complaint by a woman about a man is true, and the man couldn't have a valid alternative version of events. Everyday sexism is right, just not how they intended it.

And from the website's Indigenous Solidarity Guidelines (No. 1):
First and foremost we must recognize that non-indigenous people are occupying stolen land in an ongoing genocide that has lasted for centuries.

In addition to infrastructure and men, Lierre Keith also wants to abolish agriculture. This came about when after many years of saving the planet by being a vegan, she changed her mind and decided that vegans were actually helping to destroy the planet and everyone should save the planet by adopting the paleo diet instead.

Talking about her book "The Vegetarian Myth":

"We’re at the cliff. The human race is at the cliff. And that’s probably the main reason that I wrote that book, because the people who care the most are the environmentalists. And even of them, I would say that the most impassioned people are probably the vegans. And the values are not the problem – so justice, sustainability, compassion. We have the right values, and we’ve got the passion to institute them. But this vegetarian, vegan diet is – we’ve been pointing in the wrong direction for 30 years. And I want people to understand the real damage that’s been done to this planet, and what it’s going to take to really repair it. Because we are going to have to give up agriculture if this planet has any hope."

* Why does a masculine woman want to abolish masculinity? That's like me saying we should abolish handsomeness. No way, Jose.

* The years have not been kind to Tasha Yar.

* Was the diagram of the penis for the benefit of audience members who are unfamiliar with One Eyed Willy? I didn't actually listen to her presentation, because she's a woman.

* Also, that diagram is wrong. It doesn't include the specially reinforced wheelbarrow I carry mine about in. Speed bumps are a constant hazard.

* What's going on with Portland, Oregon anyway? Was it the real life inspiration for Romero's "The Crazies"?

* I'm guessing no dudes were allowed at that She-Ra Man-Haters Club meeting. But if they had invited some wispy-bearded, manbag-toting, wool-hat-sporting hipster male feminists, those chaps could've given practical tips on how to abolish masculinity. Then they could all have enjoyed a good cry together about their feelings.

* “Being a man requires a psychology based on entitlement, emotional numbness, and a dichotomy of self-knowledge.”

Yes, yes. But she's forgetting all the other things that make a man, such as knuckle hair, eating pork scratchings, and missing the toilet bowl when you pee.

Also driving skills, spider killing skills, and owning a tin of WD-40 should be on that list. Abolish masculinity and all the water displacing lubricant will run out. And then where will the newly liberated unmasculine folk be? Trapped in their own spider-ravaged houses - crying - when the locks seize up, that's where. Is that what she wants?

* I don't know what a "dichotomy of self-knowledge" is, but I assume it has something to do with me knowing I'm great, while also knowing I'm the coolest Dad ever.

* Abolishing masculinity, capitalism, and the white race is passé these days. What is this, the 90's? No wonder her presentation was so listless, as if memorised by rote. She probably still thinks nose rings and Rage Against The Machine and The Matrix are cool. Radfems need new schtick or they'll go extinct like the goths. No wonder the intersectional pangendered tomorrow people are beating them at being radical. It's not enough any more just to hate white men. That's old hat.

* If we abolish whiteness, does that mean half of Obama will disappear, like that scene in Breaking Bad where the old Mexican geezer goes "ding ding ding... KABOOM!" and then half of Gustavo Fring's face is missing? If so, that seems a bit racist.

* That woman has a father?!? I assumed parthenogenesis or some kind of she-golem made out of used tampons and the sleeve notes from Indigo Girls CD's.

* Think of what the feminist movement could accomplish if it was run by men. Ladies, if you ever get tired of all the catty bickering, pussyfooting around each others' feelings instead of getting things done, and irrational outbursts making you look bad, I'm your man. I'll even throw in some spider killing, no extra charge.

I've asked myself the same question here on our side of the pond. I don't have an answer, but I do have a sufficiently masculine compound in the Ozarks, complete with fishnet hose and garter belts for my lovely, if somewhat oppressed, wife (non-trangengered woman--we're old-fashioned that way), thank you very much. I also keep a buried Liberty Ship filled with charcoal for the grill, because I simply love making Mother Gaia's eyes water.

It’s also worth noting that Ms Keith described her pie-throwing assailants as “cowards” and suggested they direct their rage “at the powerful, not a fellow radical.” The notion of “the powerful” is quite important in Ms Keith’s social circle of anarchopaths and poseurs, and is often used to identify targets for some exciting vandalism. Companies that offer a popular product or service – Starbucks, McDonald’s - must be punished. However, self-designated radicals must never be regarded as “the powerful” in any scenario, even when they hope to endanger countless lives by “sabotaging infrastructure.” And during the Occupy pantomime in, say, Oakland and Portland, when mobs of masked anarchopaths smashed cars and windows with baseball bats and terrorised local residents with chants of “Whose streets? Our streets,” this was in no way a display of power.

The notion of “the powerful” is quite important in Ms Keith’s social circle of anarchopaths and poseurs, and is often used to identify targets for some exciting vandalism. Companies that offer a popular product or service – Starbucks, McDonald’s - must be punished.

Heh.

In 2003, I was watching an ostensibly antiwar demo in Mexico City going past when a few enbalaclavaed youths ran out from the main body of the protestors to pelt the businesses lining the downtown avenue with water balloons filled with red dye.

They also produced buckets of manure from somewhere whose contents they dumped all over the entrance of a branch of KFC before they ran off whooping and shrieking.

What they didn't see (but I did) was that moments after the 'golden youth' – who it's likely were university students and quite possibly therefore fairly privileged – had gone on to enjoy the rest of the afternoon, all the staff from the KFC – who it's likely were neither privileged nor at university – dutifully trotted out with mops and buckets to set about cleaning up the fake blood and the actual shit.

I do love her invoking the "liberal tradition" when she is no-platformed. Of course, neo-traditional liberalism only allows platforms to neo-liberals (i.e. statist authoritarians or other bansturbators.) Intellectual and moral consistency is not, of course, required amongst the rad-fem or deep green bien pensant.

For quite a few people, myself included, that was the most vivid message conveyed by Occupy, albeit unwittingly. It was a recurrent theme, the default attitude. As I said at the time:

The Occupiers complain about their shanty towns finally being scraped from the streets in an attempt to restore order and basic hygiene. And like so much else before it, this too is disingenuous. Given their behaviour and the growing squalor, what did they expect to happen? What was their exit strategy? At what point were they planning to clear up their garbage, pick up the excrement, apologise to the locals and go home peacefully?

The catalogue of squalor and sociopathy is worth revisiting. And my listing was by no means complete. Likewise, it’s amusing to juxtapose that avalanche of delinquency with the breathless boosterism of the Guardian and New York Times. A “new progressive movement” for a “new progressive age.” “A new generation of leaders is just getting started.”

Henry: "Even the Times is constantly churning out new pieces of gender political rubbish now."

I suspect it's because it struggles to attract female readers, but knows that flattering 'Polly Filler' feminism plus lifestyle stuff does the trick. Luckily this is all shunted off into the second section, so I just throw that way. The main section is still pretty good, and includes thoughtful writers like Libby Purves and Melanie Reid who are capable of discussing gender issues without descending into indignant yapping.

Oh my, it certainly is - I mean, depressing for sure, but kind of mesmerising too.

And of course, always in the vanguard, reporting from the frontline, I noticed there was that young woman reporter-slash-activist again.

During a recent bout of just-really-can't-stop-prodding-at-this-loose-tooth madness, I ploughed through a bunch of her articles and came across this in one of them:

If you associate with a lot of anarchists, squatters or people under the age of 25, you will probably know that “ACAB” stands for “All Cops Are Bastards”.

See I would have said coppers not cops, but then I'm over 40 and not an anarchist or a squatter, so what do I know?

That she had to explain that acronym in that way is almost touching but mainly it's just telling about the writer's own background and of the average reader profile that she assumes she's writing for (that is, assuming it's not just her own super-reflection she has in mind when she writes).

R. Sherman - Evil thespian Tim Curry ruined fishnet stockings for me, the same way he ruined clowns and Curious George 2: Follow That Monkey!

David Gillies - Thank you! I don't have a blog, that all seems very complicated these days. I did have a website on Geocities that had lots of fun animated gifs saying "under construction" and a site counter.

I was very proud of it. I think I got up to nearly 100 visitors - not all of them me - before Geocities closed. Alas, the expected offer from Microsoft to buy me out never arrived.

Pst314 - What Hal said. Tasha was originally the security officer on Star Trek TNG. She was supposedly hard, but I don't remember her actually doing anything that would suggest toughness, other than having off-putting middle aged Mum hair. She then got killed by a puddle of tar.

She made Riker look plausible, and he - despite the show constantly telling us what a brilliant, heroic ladies man he was - was a cheeseball bumbling idiot who had to grow a beard and only be filmed head-on to disguise his Galaxy-class gut. Riker had all the genuine easygoing charm of a double glazing salesman who moonlights as a date rapist.

Even his girlfriend, a fake psychic, eventually saw through him and dumped him for Worf - who was similarly clueless but far too obsessed with "honour" to slip space-rohypnol in a woman's synthahol.

The only good characters on that show were Q and Evil Data, because they were smart, funny and evil.

I used to be impressed with Picard before I realised he was actually a worse leader than Kirk. Kirk understood that you can't go around the galaxy talking aliens and space-nazis to death, you need to beat them up. You can only talk sentient computers to death.

If you were a redshirt on Kirk's crew you'd probably get killed, but only on away missions where you'd be armed and expecting danger. Under Picard's command there was always a chance of being killed while on the ship, because he would probably endanger his crew in preference to doing something politically incorrect. One time he even got angry when someone killed a giant human-eating space snowflake! Kirk would have used its crushed remains to chill his Romulan Ale.

For my money the best captain in Starfleet history was Ben Sisko. He didn't take any crap, knew that getting the job done was more important than sipping tea and moralising, wasn't riddled with space-STD's from green alien babes, didn't get his entire command lost in the Delta Quadrant, AND he was a good Dad.

And if I had to do it all over again... I would. Garak was right about one thing – a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it...Because I can live with it...I can live with it. Computer – erase that entire personal log."

It’s quite special, isn’t it? It’s a new standard for oratory, and a measure of the education these young ladies have received. What’s interesting is that, having presumably watched video of themselves “debating,” or rather, performing, they don’t seem at all concerned by their dogmatism and irrelevance to the topic, or by the fact that for great stretches of time they were clearly mouthing gibberish. Actually jabbering.

What's fascinating is that they can speak articulately when they choose to. They talk about researching their debate, either as a lie to make themselves seem like serious and intelligent debaters or, for all I know, truthfully (though how research applies to...that...I wouldn't know, maybe they researched what means of baffling the judges had been effective in the past).

So essentially they become circus seals, making amusing noises and gestures to an appreciative audience. They choose to be no more than performing animals, doing whatever it takes to get a treat. Rather than rising to the level of intelligent people, and perhaps being defeated fairly, they prefer to make themselves into fools and win. It saddens me not only that such a foolish win would be awarded, but that they have not been taught the character to reject such an undeserved victory.

I suspect it's because it struggles to attract female readers, but knows that flattering 'Polly Filler' feminism plus lifestyle stuff does the trick

The lifestyle stuff is definitely there for that sort of reason though between 5 and 10 times as many women read the Daily Mail (with it's supposedly "misogynist" agenda and celeb-watching) than the Guardian, which specialises in the extreme feminist angle.

I've tried to figure out what the Times editorial people think they're doing. There's not only the lifestyle pieces but also recurring themes such as how we need more women engineers or in IT - which is fine in theory except if it turns out that women don't want to do those careers in equal numbers.

The unspoken implication is - once again - that dark forces of misogyny and prejudice are at work. There's no discussion that women may statistically prefer work that involves more social interaction and less technical problem-solving. There is research suggesting that this may be the case, but we seem to have drifted into the assumption that it's sexist to claim that men and women may naturally think slightly differently.

Libby Purves can be really, really good, but is also given to saying things like "the bodies of others are inviolable" - which doesn't seem very sophisticated to me. Melanie Reid I don't know so well.

. . . how we need more women engineers or in IT - which is fine in theory except if it turns out that women don't want to do those careers in equal numbers.

I don't have the numbers and a short anecdote for evidence, but the actuality is somewhere around both Yes, get more women into I.T and engineering, and also Actually, all the guys aren't that interested either . . .

The anecdote was an essay in a computer magazine a number of years back. The writer had gone to uni to learn programming, and was there with a good friend. They and their fellow students were a small cluster of, say, 150, and they did code and learned code, and wrote projects, and, in time, graduated.

The writer went off to work, his friend stayed in academia. 20 years later the writer went back to academia and rejoined his friend, by which point Being A Coder had become The Big Thing To Do because of Big Money!!!!!! And the lecture halls Were Huge . . . . . and then the writer noticed that in the halls, that guy was asleep, those two were having lunch, that couple in the back needed to get a room, but he did notice actual genuine students mixed in, doing code, learning code, being . . . a small cluster of, say, 150 . . . . . . . .

So, yes, if someone is bloody well up to the work, hell yes, he---Or She---should go into engineering, and in doing so, and being genuinely interested, should thrive . . .

There's no discussion that women may statistically prefer work that involves more social interaction and less technical problem-solving.

But isn't this another interesting issue? I like BS'ing with my buddies over a few beers. I could have been a bartender or barber rather than spending my life banging on this keyboard (as much as I do enjoy it for about the first 30 hours of the week) like some brain-electrode embedded rat in a psychology lab. For some stupid reason I have yet to understand, more was expected of me than say, my sister or any number of females who did better than I in English, humanities, etc. who now run boutique, antique, and chocolate shoppes subsidized by their husbands and ex-husbands and to some degree the taxpayers...schmucks like me.

"There's not only the lifestyle pieces but also recurring themes such as how we need more women engineers or in IT - which is fine in theory except if it turns out that women don't want to do those careers in equal numbers."

I bet they mention the gender inequality in a field such as, oh, garbage collection or septic tank pumping.

I bet they don't mention the gender inequality in a field such as, oh, garbage collection or septic tank pumping.

I once shut up my sister-in-law, works in the medical field, talking about how "the sisters" be doing so much relative to the men by suggesting she sit outside the prosthetics lab at her hospital and count how many men vs. how many women pass through that door.

"PETA has restarted a campaign to try and pretend there's some link between 'autism and dairy products,' in an attempt to scare people into going Vegan."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . I have a complete synaptical logjam from just trying to pick which direction to go with any or all of the absolute and effortless comedic potential in just that announcement alone . . . .

Verily, verily, I state unto you that People Eating Tasty Animals does indeed rival the Marx Brothers in the quality of their surreal . . .